A Poll About Gun Control

[jon_berzerk]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

taking away everyones guns does not make everyone safer i pick b

because you didnt have c

the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed

 

[MikeK]

You fascist commies can shove gun control! I lived is a large "gun free city" & was held at gunpoint 5 times by 7 people & 7 guns.[...]

Wow. You must be a nervous wreck!

 

[Esmeralda]

It's amazing how many people would let the nut next door keep the gun(s). Either endangering the whole community or forcing the whole community to arm themselves just for the sake of allowing one nut case to have firearms. America making sense.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Side note to all my 2nd Amendment friends. Google "tannerite" Fun stuff!

An AR at night with tracer rounds and some tannerite = fun.

 

[idb]

You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.

So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.

Really? Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people. You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.

Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.

In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.

Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.

From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.

Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?

 

[Noomi]

You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.

So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.

Really? Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people. You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.

Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.

In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.

Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.

We haven't had a mass killing in years, and its highly unlikely it will ever happen. The US experiences one every other week, and while you like to claim that if someone had a gun, they would shoot the bad guy, why are the bad guys able to cause so much damage before anyone stops them?

 

[Noomi]

I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.

I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.

 

[editec]

Is this town in America?

If so, then you get the cops to frame him for some crime, drugs or child molestation are popular choices.

If there one thing the residents of the land of the free and the home of the brave cannot stand its a citizen who thinks he's free or actually is brave.

Those people ARE going to be targeted for destruction.

 

[Esmeralda]

Is this town in America?

If so, then you get the cops to frame him for some crime, drugs or child molestation are popular choices.

If there one thing the residents of the land of the free and the home of the brave cannot stand its a citizen who thinks he's free or actually is brave.

Those people ARE going to be targeted for destruction.

Swirling shit and silly cynicism have about the same effect. Zip.

 

[eflatminor]

If it were only one that would be reason enough.

Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?

Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.

We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.

Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?

 

[eflatminor]

I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.

I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.

If a person has proven himself dangerous to others, he'd be in jail. If he's not, who's going to determine he's "dangerous"? You? Pass.

 

[idb]

Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.

We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.

Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?

It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all.
It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.

 

[eflatminor]

You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.

So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.

Really? Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people. You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.

Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.

In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.

Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.

We haven't had a mass killing in years, and its highly unlikely it will ever happen.

Tell that to the folks in Norway...

The US experiences one every other week,

Now that's just a lie.

and while you like to claim that if someone had a gun, they would shoot the bad guy, why are the bad guys able to cause so much damage before anyone stops them?

Because these thugs and crazies choose places where carrying a firearm is forbidden...they're called 'gun free zones'. Shockingly, the criminals do not obey the law...

 

[eflatminor]

We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.

Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?

It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all.
It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.

Semantics. I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently? If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.

 

[idb]

Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?

It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all.
It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.

Semantics. I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently? If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.

It's not semantics at all.
The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.

 

[midcan5]

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]

 

[eflatminor]

It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all.
It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.

Semantics. I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently? If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.

It's not semantics at all.
The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.

Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.

I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.

You don't force everyone to do something because one of one person.

Would you like to have your home searched every day because some other guy in your town was selling drugs out of his?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Semantics. I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently? If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.

It's not semantics at all.
The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.

Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?

the 2013 presidential study by the CDC on firearms

says that 500 thousand up to 3 million times per year

the firearm is defensively used

if you removed the security of the firearm

our rate of violent crime would rise as well

 

[idb]

Semantics. I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently? If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.

It's not semantics at all.
The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.

Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?

I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is because of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?